IPR Law Updates (February 2026)

NOTABLE IPR JUDGMENTS FEBRUARY 2026

1. Competition Commission of India vs Swapan Dey & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 519/2026, Supreme Court 

The Supreme Court held that the question whether the Competition Commission of India (CCI) can exercise jurisdiction over alleged anti-competitive conduct arising from patent rights requires authoritative determination. It stayed the findings of the NCLAT which had held that such matters fall exclusively within the domain of the Patents Act, thereby limiting CCI's jurisdiction. 

This case arose from a complaint filed by Swapan Dey, CEO of a hospital operating under the Pradhan Mantri National Dialysis Programme, concerning alleged anti competitive conduct by Vifor International AG in relation to Ferric Carboxymaltose (FCM), a drug that was protected by patent. Dey alleged that Vifor's conduct in licensing, pricing and supply of FCM amounted to abuse of dominance under Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act. The CCI closed the matter for lack of prima facie evidence of contravention, whereupon Dey appealed to the NCLAT, challenging the Commission's closure order and raising broader questions about whether CCI had jurisdiction to investigate conduct arising from patent rights in the first place.

The tribunal upheld the CCI's closure order on the merits but went further to rule that CCI has no jurisdiction to probe alleged anti-competitive conduct that arises out of the exercise of patented rights. It held that where the subject matter involves a patented product and its licensing or enforcement, the Patents Act operates as a special and complete code, and that the Competition Act cannot override it.

The Supreme Court confined itself to the jurisdictional issue and clarified that the central question in appeal is the extent of the CCI's authority under the Competition Act where the impugned conduct relates to the exercise of patent rights. It stayed the NCLAT's findings that the Patents Act operates as a complete code excluding the applicability of the Competition Act, and that the CCI lacks jurisdiction in such matters. By doing so, the Court preserved the statutory powers of the CCI from being curtailed without final judicial determination. The matter has been directed to be heard specifically on the issue of jurisdiction, without entering into the merits of the alleged anti-competitive conduct. The Court thus undertook to examine the interplay between the Competition Act, 2002 and the Patents Act, 1970. The final determination will settle whether the exercise of patent rights can be subject to competition law scrutiny in cases of alleged abuse. [Link Here] 

2. Jiostar India Private Limited vs GHD Sports & Ors., CS(COMM) 89/2026, Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court held that a plaintiff seeking urgent relief for infringement of exclusive broadcast and reproduction rights is entitled to exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 where immediate enforcement is necessary to prevent irreparable harm to proprietary rights. The Court clarified that when a plaintiff holds clear and undisputed exclusive rights, interim measures may be granted to protect those rights. It further held that summons and procedural timelines would be ordered to ensure expeditious adjudication of substantive claims. 

This case arose from a suit filed by Jiostar India Private Limited, a media and entertainment company that claimed to hold exclusive rights to broadcast and stream major international sporting events, including various ICC and BCCI events, on its channels and OTT platform. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, including rogue mobile applications and related websites, were illegally streaming and distributing its copyright-protected content without authorisation, thereby causing irreparable damage to its commercial interests.

Jiostar applied for multiple procedural exemptions under the Commercial Courts Act, seeking exemption from pre-institution mediation and advance notice requirements on grounds that urgent relief was necessary to prevent ongoing infringement of its broadcast rights. The plaintiff also sought ex-parte injunctions against the defendants to restrain them from unauthorised streaming and communication of its content. The High Court examined the prima facie case for injunctive relief and whether procedural relaxations were justified in light of the plaintiff's clear proprietary rights and the imminent threat of continued infringement.

The Delhi High Court held that exemption from pre-institution mediation and advance notice was justified given the urgent nature of the plaintiff's rights and the risk of ongoing harm. The Court granted permission to issue summons and ordered the defendants to respond within stipulated timeframes. Importantly, the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from streaming, reproducing, distributing, or communicating the plaintiff's copyrighted content, including future works, through their platforms. This relief was granted to protect undisputed exclusive rights and prevent irreparable loss pending final adjudication. [Link Here]

3. JFC Steel Corporation vs The Controller of Patents & Designs, Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No.52/2025, Bombay High Court  

The Bombay High Court held that the refusal of a patent application solely on the ground of non-compliance with Section 10(4) of the Patents Act, 1970, without examining the essential requirements of novelty and inventive step, is legally unsustainable. The Court clarified that insufficiency of disclosure cannot be treated as the sole basis for rejection where no findings are returned on substantive patentability. It therefore held that such a rejection order cannot be upheld in law. 

This case arose from an order of the Controller refusing Patent Application No. 1155/MUMNP/2015 under Section 15 of the Patents Act. The Controller rejected the application exclusively on the ground that the specification did not satisfy the requirement of sufficiency of disclosure under Section 10(4). The petitioner contended that the order contained no determination that the invention lacked novelty or inventive step.

The petitioner argued that the Controller had failed to assess the application on its merits and had confined the refusal only to alleged deficiencies in disclosure. Reliance was placed on prior decisions of the Court holding that rejection solely under Section 10(4), without examining other statutory requirements, is improper. It was also submitted that corresponding patents had been granted in multiple foreign jurisdictions, indicating that the invention had satisfied similar disclosure standards elsewhere.

The High Court, upon examining the impugned order, found that it was entirely founded on alleged non-compliance with Section 10(4) and contained no independent reasoning on novelty or inventive step. The Court held that in the absence of findings on these substantive criteria, the rejection could not be sustained. It observed that while foreign grants are not conclusive, they are relevant where disclosure is questioned. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration by a different Controller, to examine all statutory requirements and pass a reasoned order. [Link Here]

To view the full article, click here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.